Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Ram vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2015
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 81 of 2012
1. Praksah Ram, s/o Late Kailash Ram
Resident of village & P.O. Bariyatu
P.S. Balumath, Distt. Latehar .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, APP
----------
04/Dated: 29/01/2015
This criminal revision application has been directed against the order dated 24.09.2011, passed by Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Latehar, in S.T.Case No.79/2011 in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No.43 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 164 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed by discharging him for the offence under Section 307 IPC with a finding that a prima facie case is made out for charges under Section 448, 341, 323, 353, and 477 IPC.
2. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the impugned order though the petitioner was discharged for the offence under Section 307 IPC as none of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner had tried to throttle the informant but the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the ingredients for the offence under Sections 448, 341, 323, 353, and 477 IPC is not made out as there was no criminal trespass in a building used for human dwelling neither any hurt was caused by this petitioner and there was no fraudulent or dishonest removal or destruction of any document neither was the informant wrongful restrained. That the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 is also not made out. As would be evident from the fact that the petitioner had lodged Latehar (Harizan) P.S.Case No.1/2007 against the informant on 20.4.2007 2 at 17.15 hours, whereas the present case was lodged against the petitioner on the same day at 23.15 hours. The present case has been lodged to create a defence by the informant to save his skin as the petitioner being the MLA during the said period had asked the informant to meet him and apprise him regarding various ongoing development scheme of his constituency and when the informant did not came he has visited the office of the informant but the informant abused him by his caste name whereupon the petitioner had lodged the case against the informant. That the petitioner had not obstructed the official work of the informant rather as an MLA he was duty bound and had the right to enquire about the various development schemes. That the trial court has failed to consider and appreciate these facts and has illegally rejected the application.
3. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the State has countered the submission and submitted that the petitioner as the local MLA was a influential person and the fact regarding who was the aggressor can only be determined when evidence is led during the trial in the respective counter cases and not at this stage. That in the impugned order trial court has considered the statement of witnesses in paras-8, 9, 10, 19, & 20 who are namely, Suresh Prasad Singh, Thakur Vijay Kunwar, Mohammad Ibrahim, Mohammad Israfil Ali and Rauf Mian who had supported the allegation that this petitioner had abused and assaulted and a scuffle took place between the parties. That the materials have been considered and discussed by the trial court.
4. Heard. Perused the impugned order. The trial court has discussed the evidence on record and has rightly discharged the petitioner under Section 307 IPC, but there is no finding whether this petitioner had removed any document or what were the documents removed by the petitioner. The nature of the documents or the number of files have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Thus in given circumstances in the absence of any material on record to show that there was fraudulent or dishonest removal of any document a prima-facie case for offence under Section 477 IPC is not made out . Accordingly, the petitioner is discharged for the charge under Section 477 IPC. However, findings of the trial court for framing of charge regarding other sections of the Indian 3 Penal Code does not warrant any interference.
5. The plea of the defence cannot be considered or looked into at this stage that there is a case and counter case.
6. The petitioner is at liberty to place his defence when evidence is led during trial.
7. With the said direction and observation, this revision application is hereby partly allowed and disposed of.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Fahim/